Taft voters block proposed landscape and lighting assessment increase; council declares results

A mailed-ballot majority protest defeated a proposed assessment increase for Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 1, the Taft City Council confirmed after counting returned ballots at its Jan. 7 meeting.

City Clerk (unnamed) reported that 144 ballots were sent and 45 were returned; 18 ballots supported the increase and 27 opposed it. The clerk said the tally constituted a majority protest and the assessment increase failed. The council then moved and seconded a resolution to formally declare the results of the assessment balloting in the negative; the resolution passed on a 5-0 roll-call vote (Councilmember Kreier, Mayor Pro Tem Josh Bryant, Councilmember Waldrop, Councilmember Chavera and Mayor Knorr voting yes).

The hearing drew public comment from residents who urged the council to find alternatives rather than simply raising assessments. Terry Randall, a resident of 109 James Avenue, said he opposed the increase, calling the proposed rise “over 200%” compared with current rates and saying he would support a lower rate if staff presented alternatives. Paul Linder, a long-time Taft Kiwanis member and resident, praised city crews but urged the council to form a small ad hoc committee to identify cost-saving options such as replacing turf with low-water landscapes and greater reliance on hardscaping. Linder offered to serve on such a committee.

Council members acknowledged past failed attempts to raise the assessment and stressed the need to find a sustainable approach. Mayor Knorr said ballot measures on the district have failed before and noted staff has looked at alternatives; Mayor Pro Tem Bryant and others said they supported forming a committee or using the existing public works committee to solicit public input and explore options. Councilmember Waldrop nominated Paul Linder to chair the proposed committee and suggested including other residents who volunteered during public comment.

Council staff and speakers also discussed the cost of street lights. Linder suggested evaluating a citywide funding approach—similar to the city’s street-sweeping charge—so costs would be shared by all property owners; council members noted the city does not control power rates and that PG&E charges for street-light service have risen. No new assessment or ordinance was adopted; the only formal action was the council’s resolution declaring the ballot results and closing the public hearing.

The council directed staff to return the matter for further consideration, with multiple members suggesting the public works committee or a small ad hoc group meet with residents and staff to review alternatives before bringing recommendations back to the full council.